Mark Dayton

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, this amendment raises money. It does so by ending tax avoidance by high-paid corporate executives through their personal use of company airplanes. A recent Wall Street Journal article described the exorbitant uses of corporate jets for personal recreation, largely untaxed, that costs company shareholders and other taxpayers millions of dollars per year. One CEO made eight weekend roundtrips from his Pittsburgh office to his $5 million home in Naples, FL, where he played golf at his exclusive private club. If the directors and shareholders of that company want to provide that personal luxury perk to an executive already paid $4 million a year, I guess that is their business. But these executives should pay taxes on what are clearly personal benefits, and they should pay taxes on the actual values of those benefits, not on some artificially low fictional cost. Working men and women have to value their benefits properly for tax purposes or they get penalized if they do not. Certainly, the wealthiest people in America should also have to value their luxury perks properly. My amendment would raise $95 million over 10 years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, and will also reduce a truly outrageous and self-indulgent practice. I ask for the yeas and nays. I will accept a voice vote.

Mr. DAYTON. I thank the chairman from Iowa. It was my going-away present. It must be my going-away present.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. I thank the distinguished ranking member, the Senator from Maryland, for her kind words. I commend her and the chairman of the committee, Senator Shelby, for their outstanding work on this conference report. I know it was under very difficult circumstances. There are many good features to the report, as the Senator has just described. Again, I thank her for her leadership and her tenacious fighting on behalf of these efforts, whether they were successful or whether they were not. Tragically, however, the House and the administration largely prevailed in this conference report in cutting funding for the law enforcement programs to only 38 percent of the Senate's position. Senator Chambliss from Georgia and I cosponsored a bipartisan amendment to the Senate bill that passed the Senate unanimously, which increased the Byrne grant funding from $900 million for fiscal 2006. Yet the House and administration, in the conference, slashed that appropriations to $416.4 million, which is a one-third reduction from fiscal year 2005. Byrne grants fund local law enforcement to combat the most urgent public safety problems in their own communities. In my own State of Minnesota, Byrne grant programs have provided the critically important funds to fight the scourge of methamphetamine, which is an illegal drug crisis in many States, as the distinguished ranking member has outlined. She has been in the forefront in efforts to increase the Federal funding to fight this catastrophe that is afflicting our citizens, afflicting people of all ages--I am told by chiefs of police, those as young as 10, and senior citizens in their eighties, from all parts of Minnesota and from all walks of life and backgrounds. While the burdens on local police and sheriffs and other local law enforcement officials have been increasing, Byrne grants to Minnesota have decreased from over $8 million in 2000 to $7.5 million last year. This year's cut in this conference report will mean that Minnesota's share of Byrne grant funding will drop to less than $5 million next year, which is a 40-percent reduction from the year 2000. In addition, the COPS grants in this report are cut from $606 million to $416 million, another one-third reduction, with zero dollars provided for the hiring of new law enforcement officers, which was the program's original goal. Byrne grants and COPS are the two most important sources of Federal funds to boost police and sheriff forces throughout our country, to increase the drug prevention programs or drug court interdictions. They are programs that keep our neighborhoods safer, our communities safer, and our rural counties safer. Why do the administration and the House want to drastically cut Federal support from local law enforcement; to cut funds from the brave men and women who are on the frontlines against the forces of evil in our society, who are risking their lives day and night to defeat the evil predators who are destroying the lives of our citizens? Why? It is unconscionable, it is incomprehensible that the House and the administration are defunding local law enforcement. Here we have an administration that preaches national security but will not fund it at home. It is an administration that preaches the war against terrorism but will not fund the war against drug-dealing and drug-pushing terrorists on our streets and in our schools. How mistaken, how shortsighted, how wrong-directed could anyone be? Again, I thank the Senate's chairman and ranking member for doing their best against the administration, which would like to eliminate these programs because they were the good ideas of the previous administration and their allies in the House. Congress should be providing more money, not less, but more money to strengthen local law enforcement in their fight against organized crime, drug dealers, and other predators. For that reason, I regretfully cannot support this report. The citizens of America deserve better law enforcement and more Federal support to make it possible--not the lower, the cut position of the House and administration. I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. I don't want to deceive the chairman. My remarks are related to the remarks of last Veterans Day rather than the bill directly. I ask either that be accommodated or I speak as in morning business for a period of up to 12 minutes.

Mr. DAYTON. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, last Friday, on Veterans Day, President Bush attacked those of us who questioned or criticized his conduct of the Iraq war. Once again, he tried to portray his critics as opposing our own troops or aiding their enemies. Once again, he was wrong. Once again, he tried to blame others for his mistakes and for the failures of his policies--mistakes and failures that have trapped 158,000 of America's best and bravest soldiers in Iraq for over 2\1/2\ years, since the fall of Saddam Hussein, with no end in sight. Let's be clear that every person in this Senate supports our troops 1,000 percent. We provided every dollar requested for defense authorizations, appropriations, and supplementals with overwhelming bipartisan and often unanimous support. Some of us have tried to provide more funding than the administration would support for our returning troops and veterans. We have never accused them of being against our troops or un-American. Together, on the Senate Armed Services Committee on which I am proud to sit, Republicans and Democrats have repeatedly asked our civilian and military commanders: What more do you need to win this war as soon as possible? What do you need to bring our troops home as safely and quickly as possible, with the victory that they won in 3 weeks in the spring of 2003 secured, finally, by the Iraqis? Tell us what you need, and it is yours. This Senate has not failed our troops. This Senator, a critic of your policies, has not failed our troops. You, sir, have failed our troops; and you, sir, have failed the American people by the failures of your policies in Iraq. Last Friday, President Bush stood in front of a banner that said: ``Strategy For Victory.'' Two and a half years ago, he stood on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln before a banner: ``Mission Accomplished.'' Unfortunately, he had the banners mixed up. If he had a ``Strategy For Victory'' 2\1/2\ years ago, we would have ``Mission Accomplished'' today. The President accuses his critics of rewriting the history of this war. Nonsense. The history of this war was clearly enunciated by this administration and is available for all to reread. The President, the Vice President, and their top advisers repeatedly presented their rationales for this war and predicted its outcomes, and they were repeatedly wrong. On just about everything, they were wrong. I say that with sorrow because when the President of the United States is wrong, all Americans suffer the consequences. There is no better or worse summary of the administration's prewar fallacies than the transcript of Vice President Cheney's appearance on ``Meet The Press'' with Tim Russert the Sunday before the invasion began. I excerpted those remarks for brevity but without altering their meaning. The Vice President said on the program, as he had said repeatedly during the past 7 months: We believe Saddam Hussein has in fact reconstituted nuclear weapons. We know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know he has a longstanding relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al-Qaida organization. When Mr. Russert queried: And even though the International Atomic Energy Agency said he does not have a nuclear program, we disagree? Vice President Cheney replied: I disagree, yes. . . .We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong. Mr. Russert: If your analysis is not correct, and we're not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties? Vice President Cheney: Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I've talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. . . . The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that. Mr. Russert: The army's top general said that we would have to have several hundred thousand troops there for several years in order to maintain stability. Vice President Cheney: I disagree. . . . But to suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don't think is accurate. I think that's an overstatement. Mr. Russert: We have had 50,000 troops in Kosovo for several years, a country of just five million people. This is a country of 23 million people. It will take a lot in order to secure it. Vice President Cheney: . . . There's no question but what we'll have to have a presence there for a period of time. It is difficult now to specify how long. We will clearly want to take on responsibilities in addition to conducting military operations and eliminating Saddam Hussein's regime. We need to be prepared to provide humanitarian assistance, medical care, food, all of those other things that are required to have Iraq up and running again. And we are well-equipped to do that. We have got a lot of effort that's gone into that. Mr. Russert: Every analysis said this war itself would cost over $80 billion, recovery of Baghdad, perhaps of Iraq, about $10 billion per year. We should expect as American citizens that this would cost at least $100 billion for a two-year involvement. Vice President Cheney: I can't say that, Tim. . . . In Iraq you've got a nation that's got the second-largest oil reserves in the world, second only to Saudi Arabia. It will generate billions of dollars a year in cash flow if they get back to their production of roughly three million barrels of oil a day, in the relatively near future. On every one of those key assertions, Vice President Cheney was wrong. Whether he was misinformed, misguided, mistaken, or knowingly misleading the American people, I cannot say. I can say that he was consistently wrong. And because he and the President were wrong, over 2,000 of our best and bravest Americans have lost their lives in Iraq. Many thousands more have returned home wounded or maimed for life. Hundreds of thousands more have been separated from their families for years, with more separations for more years still to come. Because the Bush administration's assumptions and expectations were wrong, because their preparations for post-Saddam Hussein Iraq were wrong, and because their predictions before and after the war began were wrong, America's standing in the world is worse than before. The terrorist organizations that hate the United States are stronger than before, and our national security is tragically and terribly weaker than before this war began. When I voted against the Iraq war resolution in October of 2002, I said I hoped I was wrong and the war's proponents were right because the stakes were too high for partisanship. When I disagreed with President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in March of 2003, I said I hoped I was wrong and he was right because the stakes were too high for anything but patriotism. I deeply regret when he has been wrong. I deeply regret the mistakes of his policies and the failures of his practices because a President's mistakes and failures become America's mistakes and failures. And America, the greatest Nation on Earth, the leader of the world's hopes and opportunities for peace and prosperity, America cannot afford mistakes and failures in this difficult and dangerous world, and this world cannot afford America's mistakes and failures. Two and a half years after our troops toppled Saddam Hussein is too long for 158,000 of Americas's soldiers, the world's best and bravest, to still be doing the patroling, the policing, the fighting, the bleeding, and the dying in Iraq--too long, and there is no end in sight. It is because we support our troops, because they are our sons and daughters and we love them, that we want to bring them home safely as soon as possible with their military successes of 2\1/2\ years ago secured by Iraqis, not Americans. The President and the Vice President could show their support for our troops by telling them and us what the strategy for victory in Iraq really is and how and when we will achieve it and what are the timetables and measures of that success or lack of it so our courageous fighting men and women and their families and their fellow Americans can know how they will win, when they will win. Those are the answers they and we deserve. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. I ask unanimous consent that Luke Ballman of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the debate on this authorization bill.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I rise to thank the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the ranking member, who are two of the finest public servants I have ever had the privilege of knowing, for their leadership of that committee on which I serve and for their leadership on this important legislation before the Senate, which I support. I also thank them for including two of my amendments in the bill, the first of which is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, which I am proud to coauthor with Senator Murray of Washington and Senator Collins of Maine, that says the Department of Defense must honor its promise to pay reenlistment bonuses to members of the Army National Guard. I was told yesterday that the Pentagon has reversed its position and has now approved the National Guard's payment of those promised reenlistment bonuses. My second amendment authorizes an additional $50 million for childcare for Active-Duty military families and an additional $10 million for family assistance centers. The committee bill already provided for increased funding for these two vital programs, and I thank the chairman and ranking member for agreeing to these further authorizations which parallel the increased funding that I added to the Senate's 2006 Defense appropriations bill. Our military families are facing increased pressures as husbands and wives are deployed in faraway war zones and thus separated from their families for up to 18 months at a time. The Office of the Secretary of Defense has reported that some 38,000 children of Active-Duty families are being denied childcare in military facilities due to the lack of funding for the centers and for the spaces needed. This imposes an unfair additional hardship on these wonderful American families. The extended absence of a parent is compounded by the lack of available, reliable childcare. For the same reasons of extended absences, emotional and financial stresses, and the understandable need for support, the military family assistance centers are more important now than ever. They are especially valuable for the families of Reserve and Guard men and women whose wife or husband is called to active duty and then deployed in adjusting to extended absences and then readjusting to the spouses return or, in the worst case, to the spouse's not returning home alive, or returning home seriously wounded or maimed for life. When we talk about supporting our troops, which all of us truly want to do, two very important ways are through childcare and family assistance services. I wanted to take this opportunity to address briefly a related area, one vital to our national security. Last week the Washington Post reported that the CIA is operating secret prisons in up to eight other countries, including one in a former Soviet gulag in eastern Europe. These are so-called ``black sites'' where reportedly the CIA's ``enhanced interrogation techniques,'' some of which are prohibited by U.N. convention or U.S. military law--in other words, torture--are being used against unidentified subjects for indefinite periods of time. They are reportedly being denied lawyers or any opportunity to defend themselves against whatever charges of wrongdoing have brought them there. At the same time, the Vice President has reportedly given ``one of the most impassioned pitches he has ever delivered'' to Republican Senators at last week's caucus lunch opposing the McCain amendment, which passed the Senate by a vote of 90 to 9, that would prohibit the use of torture against detainees. The President has reportedly threatened to veto the entire 2006 Defense appropriations bill if it contains the McCain amendment. The Vice President was reportedly urging that the prohibition against torture be stricken, or at least an exception be given to the CIA. Now we know why the President and the Vice President are so adamantly opposed to the Senate's ban on the use of torture or want an exemption for the CIA. It is because the CIA is operating secret prisons in other countries where torture is allegedly being used. Why else would they be against prohibiting torture, if they weren't doing it or intending to do it? In response to the Post story, Republican congressional leaders sent a letter to the chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees requesting them to ``immediately initiate a joint investigation into the possible release of classified information to the media alleging that the United States Government may be detaining and interrogating terrorists at undisclosed locations abroad. As you know, if accurate, such an egregious disclosure could have long-term and far-reaching damaging and dangerous consequences, and would imperil our efforts to protect the American people and our homeland from terrorist attacks.'' Well, with all due respect, I say that the Republican leaders have the right idea but the wrong focus. There ought to be a congressional investigation, but it ought to be on the existence of those secret prisons, on who is being held there, why, for how long, and how are they being treated, whether torture is being used, and why these ``black sites'' are being hidden from Congress. I know my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, has just proposed an amendment to this legislation that would require disclosure of these secret sites. I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor of his amendment.

Mr. DAYTON. The oversight responsibilities of Congress have tragically been emasculated by this administration, and too many Members of Congress have acquiesced. They have bowed to this administration's wishes or demands that it be able to do whatever it wants, wherever it wants, and to whomever it wants. And then, if they are caught doing it, they say it is part of the war against terror, or that it is essential to our national security. You don't defeat terror with terror. You don't stop those inhuman beings who would commit atrocities by committing atrocities against them. And you don't make our citizens more secure by taking away other people's brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers to secret gulags and torturing them for months or years. Of those torture victims themselves, if you release them, does anyone suppose that they will not be filled with hatred and revenge towards the United States? After they have been tortured, you keep them secretly locked up forever so they can't torture Americans in return? These are not only hideous, horrible, and inhuman practices, they are stupid policies, shortsighted, misguided, and immoral policies which, if not illegal, should be, and which, to use the CIA's term, will blow back or boomerang against our own citizens in the years ahead. Yes, there should be a congressional investigation into how unelected people with no accountability to the American people or to the civilized world can usurp the powers and responsibilities which are this Congress's by law, and why this Congress has let them get away with it and continues to look the other way while they blacken America's great name, debase our good values, and endanger our national security with their depravity. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. To speak on two amendments already included in the managers' package.

Mr. DAYTON. Amendments to the bill that are in the managers' package.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. DAYTON. We need to discuss the amount of time on the Ensign amendment.

Mr. DAYTON. No objection.

Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Burns, Thomas, Enzi, Dorgan, and Hatch be listed as original cosponsors of amendment No. 2448, which was agreed to yesterday by unanimous consent.

Mr. DAYTON. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee and the distinguished ranking member for ceding me this time. I call up amendment No. 2244.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, recently the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services sent to 42 million Medicare beneficiaries this handbook, ``Medicare & You,'' to describe a myriad of plans providing prescription drug coverage. There are an enormous number of plans in Minnesota--over 40 plans. I have tried to go through the book myself. I have had my staff try to explain it to me. I think I am a reasonably intelligent American, but this is extremely complicated and it will be very challenging to many Medicare beneficiaries. That is going to be compounded by the fact that there is a very serious error in the tables that will apply to 17 million Americans whose incomes are low enough that they qualify for partial subsidy for their premiums. The question in the column heading is ``If I qualify for extra help, will my full premium be covered?'' Under every single plan, the answer is listed as ``yes.'' That is incorrect. Only about 40 percent of the plan offerings--those with premiums below the regional average--will be covered. The other 60 percent will be only covered up to that amount, and anything above that the beneficiary has to pay, but that is incorrectly described here. Yet CMS refuses to correct the error by a subsequent mailing. My amendment requires them to do so and would transfer such funds as necessary from their administrative accounts so it is offset. It is essential to all beneficiaries and the integrity of the plan. Amendment No. 2245 I ask that amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 2245.

Mr. DAYTON. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DAYTON. This amendment increases the Federal funding for IDEA, special education, to what was promised 28 years ago, 40 percent of the cost of State and local governments. I can only speak for my State, but that money would be desperately needed and very well used. It would amount to about $250 million in additional Federal funding for K-12 education for my State to keep the promise that has been broken. It has cost about $12 billion above what has been committed so far. I recognize the distinguished chairman and ranking member have made this a priority and have increased funding, and we have made some progress in the last few years. But we are still less than 20 percent-- less than half--of the commitment for special education made almost three decades ago. Amendment No. 2289 Finally, I ask that amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 2289.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the reading be dispensed with.

Mr. DAYTON. This amendment provides additional funding to State governments and agencies involved with Americans with disabilities to allow them access to vote. The Help America Vote Act of 2003--landmark legislation, bipartisan legislation--unfortunately, has not been funded to the level necessary to help States and local governments comply with this requirement. This is a modest amount, $15 million, offset by the increase in the administrative costs, so it would result in a reduction for administration but would be money we committed that has not been forthcoming. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 2239

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, 3 years ago today a chartered plane crashed in northeastern Minnesota killing Minnesota's senior Senator, Paul Wellstone, his wife Sheila, and their daughter Marcia. Also on board were Mary McEvoy, our State Democratic Party's associate chair; Tom Lapic, a long-time Senate staffer; a young aide, Will McLaughlin; and two pilots. There were no survivors. They were flying to Minnesota's famed Iron Range to attend a friend's father's funeral when the plane crashed just before landing and before Senator Wellstone's reelection just 11 days away. Paul and I were political allies and personal friends for over 20 years, and he was my colleague and mentor during my first 2 years in the Senate. In 1982, Paul was the Democratic Farmer-Labor or DFL candidate for State auditor in Minnesota, while I was its candidate for the Senate. We both lost. Eight years later, we switched. Paul ran for the Senate; I ran for auditor. We both won. In between, we officed and worked together on energy and economic development programs for the Governor of Minnesota and became good friends. When Paul ran for reelection to the Senate in 1996, I agreed to be his finance chair. Paul hated fundraising as much as I did, so we made quite a team. Fortunately, Paul's great popularity in Minnesota and his nationwide reputation as champion for important, progressive causes prevailed, and he won a decisive reelection victory. Four years later, Paul helped me win my election to the Senate. Everyone who knew Paul and Sheila Wellstone knows that they were extraordinary, unmatchable, and irreplaceable. Marcia, Mary, Tom, and Will were very accomplished and special people in their own rights, and their losses were as searing to their families and friends as Paul's and Sheila's. Senator Paul Wellstone was unique. He was the leader, the heart, and the soul of Minnesota's Democratic Party. He had more passionately devoted followers, supporters, and political organizers than anyone else in Minnesota, perhaps more than anyone in our State's political history, for Paul Wellstone was truly a man of, by, and for the people, especially, as he jokingly referred to himself and to them, the little fellers. He stood for, spoke for, and worked for the many against the powerful, the wealthy, and the narrow special interests. In 1990, he pulled one of the greatest political upsets ever by defeating a well-entrenched Republican incumbent, despite being outspent by 7 to 1 and being 40 percent behind in the polls at Labor Day. He came to Washington, immersed himself in the work of the Senate, and over his 12 years, won respect and friendships on both sides of the aisle. Whether they agreed or disagreed with Paul, everyone knew that he truly believed his position was right, that he passionately cared about the people he was trying to help, and that he had the unflinching courage of his convictions. He also had the oratory eloquence to win skeptics to his side and the genuine good humor to keep even his opponents his friends. He used his skills, his terrific mind always absorbing new ideas, his nationwide network of friends and advisers, his growing seniority in the Senate, and his passion and persistence to accomplish much more than time permits me to recount. During his first term, he authored and passed the landmark ``gift ban'' legislation that virtually eliminated all lobbyist gifts to Members of Congress and staffers. He was an original cosponsor of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. In Paul's own words, he said: I am proud to be a politician because I believe strongly in democracy. My father, a Jewish immigrant from Russia whose family had to move from town to town because of czarist persecution, taught me to cherish free elections and the idea of ``government of, by, and for the people.'' But I am not proud of the current state of campaigns and politics in our country. The ethical issue in our time is that money has come to dominate politics and the democracy my father so deeply believed in is so severely compromised. Campaigns match image-makers against image-makers, pollsters against pollsters, and millions of dollars against millions of dollars. It is a superficial, trivialized politics of attack ads, manipulated advertising and 9 second sound bites. Most importantly, money corrupts the process. This is a much more serious corruption than the wrongdoing of a single individual. This is the kind of corruption which results in too few people having too much wealth, power, and say and too many people being denied a voice. It is the politics of democracy for the few, not democracy for the many. Paul also worked tirelessly for years in partnership with Senator Domenici to enact mental health parity, requiring that mental illness be treated similar to any other illness. This important cause pitted Senators Wellstone and Domenici against very powerful and profitable special interests--insurance companies and for-profit health providers, whose profits increased by not providing or not paying for needed health care services. The two Senators succeeded in winning Senate passage of their amendment to the Kennedy-Kassebaum health insurance health protection bill with 70 votes in favor. Unfortunately, their amendment was defeated in the conference committee. The two Senators continued working together to enact their historic legislation. Tragically, the Senate effort has lagged since Senator Wellstone's death, despite the present majority leader's pledge in his remarks on the Senate floor of October 24, 2003 ``to ensure that mental health is appropriately addressed in this Congress.'' That legislation has not been voted on in the Senate, either in the last session of Congress or in this one. It would be the best possible commemoration of Senator Wellstone's life, and the giving of his life in the service of his country, for the Senate to pass that legislation and insist that it becomes law. There is so much more that Paul Wellstone achieved, such as protecting women and children from domestic abuse, on which he and his wife Sheila worked closely together, and which he wanted to achieve before his life was tragically ended. His uniqueness recalls the words of Ernest Hemingway: Few men are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer quality than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality of those who would seek to change a world which yields most painfully to change. Paul Wellstone dedicated his life to change the world for the betterment of people. That is why he and Sheila meant so much to so many people in Minnesota and across the country. All of us--their family, friends, and admirers--still feel their loss. They and Marcia, Mary, Tom, and Will all had so much life left to live. We will cherish them forever. I close with a brief passage from Paul Wellstone's political autobiography, ``The Conscience of a Liberal.'' When I am in coffeeshops with people, no one asks, Are you left, right or center? No one cares. What people want is that your politics be about them. Tip O'Neill once declared, ``All politics is local.'' But I would go further. All politics is personal. These are people who more than anything else yearn for a politics they can believe in. They want politicians whom they can trust and who are at least most of the time on their side. With Paul Wellstone, people had the very best on their side all of the time. He will always be missed. May his life--all of their lives-- be an example and inspiration to us all. I yield the floor.